Standing Committee D

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Homes Bill

George Stevenson: Before we continue our deliberations, I remind the Committee that we must conclude our proceedings by Five o'clock. I should also advise the Committee that under the provisions of Sessional Order D on programming, at the end of today's proceedings I must adjourn Committee forthwith, without putting the Question that I do report the Bill the House. Clause 27 PMS and PDS lists

Clause 27 - PMS and PDS lists

Amendment proposed: No. 77, in page 17, leave out lines 31 and 32—[Mr. Don Foster.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

George Stevenson: I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
 No. 91, in page 17, line 34, at end insert 
`or another authority's district'.
 No. 83, in page 17, line 34, at end insert 
`save that the factors may not be taken into account in any case where to do so would be unreasonable having regard to the need of the person or household for an allocation of housing accommodation.'
 No. 92, in page 17, line 34, at end insert— 
`( ) any record of behaviour of a person (or of a member of his household) which has affected the terms of a previous tenancy he has held.'
 No. 96, in page 17, line 47, after `accommodation', insert 
`which may be available within the authority's district or within another authority's district'
 Government amendments Nos. 106 to 108.

Nick Raynsford: When we broke up for lunch I was explaining to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) why amendment No. 77 was inappropriate. When I referred to the type of undesirable person who should not have automatic access to council housing, he promptly rose to his feet. Of course, I would not have made any such association.
 I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that Govt amendment No. 106 is an additional provision and not, as he implied in his comments, a substitution for subsection (2A)(b), which is amendment No.77 seeks to remove. Individuals must face the consequences of their actions. That is essential for stable communities and a safe environment and for bringing home to those who behave badly that their behaviour will not be tolerated. However, I repeat that the provision is not a basis for backdoor blanket exclusions; it relates to the determination of priorities and each individual application will be considered on its own merit. That will involve a careful balancing of factors, including the seriousness of the behaviour and the applicants' housing need. 
 Amendment No. 91 would seem to be redundant. It would allow an authority to take account of a local connection between a person and another authority's district. One has to ask why. If it is envisaged that reduced priority would be given to those coming from outside the area, that can already be achieved under (2A)(c) by giving increased priority to locally connected individuals. Although they make some bizarre proposals, I do not honestly think that Opposition Members are actually suggesting that we should give higher priority to people without a local connection. I do not genuinely believe that is the purpose of their amendment. Of course, if there is a good reason to do so, in specific circumstances, there is nothing to stop an authority making such provisions. Subsection (2A) already makes specific provision for authorities to specify factors that may be taken into account. 
 Amendment No. 96 is closely related. I am keen that authorities should work together to enable allocations to be made across local authority boundaries, which seems to be in the spirit of this amendment. People's choices about where to live do not always fit neatly within administrative boundaries and there will be frequently be excellent reasons for seeking accommodation outside the authority in which an applicant is currently situated. Of course, facilitating movement from areas of high demand to areas of low demand areas make eminent good sense. Although I am not against the spirit of the amendment, it does not seem necessary to include it in the Bill. An authority's policy on offering people a choice of housing implicitly includes its policies in relation to its own accommodation and its arrangements with other authorities. 
 Amendment No. 92 also seems superfluous. Its effect is surely covered by subsection (2A)(b), which deals with behaviour that affects a person's suitability to be a tenant. Although I understand the intentions behind amendment No. 83, which was moved with admirable clarity and brevity by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), it does not add anything to the current proposals. In law, local authorities must act reasonably in balancing the factors to be taken into account against the needs of a person or household. So there is no need for the amendment. 
 We are introducing the Government amendments where we now feel that the drafting of the Bill has not achieved our original policy intentions. I am grateful to hon. Members who have helped identify matters that needed clarification or development. I begin with amendment No. 106. Members of the Committee will recall previous debates about the importance of housing authorities not being able to impose blanket bans on particular categories of applicant. As I have already said, we are maintaining a clear policy on that and I am confident that the provisions of the Bill ensure that there will be no scope for authorities to introduce such bans. However, there is another side to the issue. There may be circumstances in which an authority has reasonable grounds for deciding that it will not allocate housing to a person because that person is unsuitable to be a tenant of that particular authority, or because he or she is unsuitable to be a tenant generally. I am advised that it is inherent in the provisions of part VI that authorities have the power to make such a decision where the circumstances justify that. That is a normal and reasonable function for any landlord. 
 However, I am anxious to ensure that authorities have the scope to decide not to allocate accommodation when faced with an applicant who has recently been evicted from their home by the courts because of unacceptable antisocial behaviour and there is every reason to believe that their behaviour has not changed and is not likely to change in the immediate future. Such households may well be owed a duty under section 190(2) of the Housing Act 1996 if they have dependent children in their household; that duty applies to applicants who have priority need, but have made themselves intentionally homeless. Authorities must accommodate them for a brief, temporary period to give them an opportunity to find accommodation for themselves, and must also provide advice and assistance. Quite rightly, we have included applicants who are owed the section 190(2) duty in the categories of housing applicants who must be given reasonable preference. Those categories are intended to include everyone in housing need, and there is no greater housing need than actually being homeless. 
 By no means are all households who have become homeless intentionally likely to be unsuitable tenants of social housing. Some may have acted foolishly, for example, by taking on more than they could cope with: one thinks of a home owner who has over-extended himself on a mortgage, and then lost his home because he could not keep up the mortgage payments. In some circumstances, applicants may be deemed to have made themselves homeless intentionally, although I stress that those who are homeless in consequence of mortgage or rent arrears should not routinely be treated as intentionally homeless. My point is that if anyone were judged in such circumstances to have made themselves intentionally homeless, it would be wholly unreasonable to deny them any preference for housing allocations. We need to remember that all those owed the section 190(2) duty will have a priority need for accommodation, and many will be families with children. 
 My concern is to ensure that authorities maintain the discretion to decide not to give preference to applicants who have recently been evicted for antisocial behaviour, even if they are owed the section 190(2) duty, and other applicants whom the authorities consider unsuitable because of their unsuitable behaviour. That is what the amendment will provide. The authority will need to be satisfied that the applicant was unsuitable: unsuitability would have to be as a result of unacceptable behaviour on the part of either the applicant or a member of his or her household. A decision on unsuitability would need to be based on the circumstances at the time of the decision—authorities could not simply refer back to previous unacceptable behaviour without considering whether the circumstances have now changed for the better. The hon. Member for Bath generously acknowledged that that was clearly provided for in the amendment. 
 As to what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, that will be defined by reference to the forms of behaviour that would give grounds for a possession order being granted in the court against a secure tenant. By way of examples, ground 1 applies where there is significant rent arrears or serious breach of tenancy obligations; ground 2 applies where the tenant or another resident has caused serious nuisance or annoyance to neighbours, or been convicted of using the accommodation, or allowing it to be used, for immoral or illegal purposes, such as drug dealing; and ground 3 applies where the property has been seriously damaged or neglected by the tenant or other residents. 
 I am conscious of the concerns that have been voiced by the hon. Member for Bath, who has picked up concerns expressed by Shelter about whether individuals who were evicted for rent arrears, possibly in cases where they did not get their housing benefit, might fall into that category. That is neither our intention nor, as I hope to demonstrate, will it be the effect of the amendment. In the first place, the definition makes it clear that we are talking about circumstances in which an authority is entitled to a possession order, not where it has simply applied for one. The courts have considerable discretion. If someone has only a trivial level of rent arrears, it is normal for the courts either not to award possession or to grant only a suspended order to allow him an opportunity to pay the arrears.

Don Foster: The Minister makes a point that I confess had not occurred to me. How would we know that the authority was entitled to such a possession order had the matter had not gone been tested in court?

Nick Raynsford: I am coming to precisely that point. We are setting a series of tests that will have to be satisfied. Then we come to the point about review procedures that we debated on Tuesday evening. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased with the provisions that we have made to ensure that any such decisions will be subject to review so that an aggrieved applicant would have the opportunity for his case to be considered.
 Let me continue. I was talking about the definition. First, the authority cannot simply apply for a possession order; it must be entitled to it. Secondly, it is extremely unlikely that any review body, let alone a court, would regard the applicant's behaviour as unacceptable if he or she had been evicted for rent arrears that were due to housing benefit delay. It would be a clear case that those were circumstances outside the individual's control and not unacceptable behaviour.

Don Foster: The Minister says that such circumstances are absolutely clear, but in reality they are not as clear as he suggests. I am sure that he has seen briefings from Shelter and others giving examples where the case has not been clear.

Nick Raynsford: It would be absolutely clear to the review body, or the court, that if someone had been evicted because of rent arrears that were caused by the failure of the authority to pay housing benefit, that would not make him unsuitable to be granted accommodation due to unacceptable behaviour. At that point there would be absolute clarity. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the test is not the fact of having been evicted, but the applicant's unacceptable behaviour. That test applies at the point of application, not in the past.
 Thirdly, even where someone is evicted for rent arrears only, rather than for other reasons, the background is sometimes more complex. While the hon. Gentleman made the point quite reasonably that the overwhelming cause of possession actions is rent arrears, he will equally be aware that in a number of cases local authorities apply for possession on grounds of rent arrears because it is easier to secure that than to prove antisocial behaviour. If someone has been intimidating witnesses, for example, it may be impossible for the local authority to provide supporting evidence to get a possession order on those grounds. If we had limited the definition to possession on the grounds of antisocial behaviour, we would undoubtedly exclude certain people who have been guilty of perpetrating appalling behaviour, but have been evicted on grounds of rent arrears. That is the reason for choosing the wider framework. 
 I hope that the hon. Member for Bath and all members of the Committee will recognise that the amendment strengthens the Bill to deal with circumstances in which an individual who had been recently evicted for unacceptable behaviour could apply to the authority as homeless and in priority need and, in circumstances where the authority had little or no pressure on its housing stock, could claim that even if he had low priority the authority should provide him with accommodation. I think that everyone accepts that it would be nonsense to have a revolving door situation whereby an authority was unable to pursue action against someone who was guilty of completely unacceptable behaviour and was terrorising his neighbourhood and then used this mechanism to get straight back into council housing. That would not be an acceptable policy. 
 Turning to amendment No. 107, when the Committee met last Tuesday there was a very detailed debate about whether there was a need for applicants to have a right to request a review of decisions made by the authority concerning their application for accommodation. The hon. Member for Bath spoke eloquently in support of amendment No. 75 and proposed new clause 5. Right hon. and hon. Members will recall that I argued rather strongly against the need for a right of review solely around the issue of eligibility for an allocation under part VI of the Housing Act 1996. Some, therefore, may have been surprised that we tabled this amendment. Let me explain. 
 The effect of amendment No. 75 and new clause 5 would have been to give applicants a right to request a review of an authority's decision that he was ineligible for an allocation of accommodation by virtue of the new provisions in section 160A(3) or (5). I remain of the view that this area of decision-making is largely a question of good administration based on the facts of the case. However, during the debate, the hon. Member for Bath argued very persuasively for a wider right of review in respect of other decision by the authority concerning, for example, the applicant's relative priority for an allocation and any decisions as to the factors mentioned in new section 167(2A), such as financial resources, behaviour affecting suitability, and local connections. Those were not the subject of amendment No. 75 or new clause 5, which would not have extended the review in such circumstances. My remarks concerned the application of new clause 5 and amendment No. 75. 
 Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Bath has probably already guessed, I had already come to the view that there should be a right for applicants to seek a review of the interpretation of facts taken into account by a local authority in determining their applications. That should cover decisions about whether they must be given reasonable preference; whether they merit additional preference; and whether any other factors, including those set out in section 167(2A), should be taken into account.

Don Foster: As this is an amendment to clause 27, can the Minister confirm that the right of review that he describes does not apply to the issue of eligibility, which we discussed at some length, where eligibility refers to two different categories? One is immigration control and I have forgotten the correct term for the other, but it is used in immigration legislation. I draw his attention to clause 25(2) and the proposed new clause 160(5) which introduces another set of categories of ineligibility in addition to those that we discussed earlier, which the Secretary of State can introduce by regulation, so we do not even know what they are likely to be. Would they be covered by the review?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has jumped slightly ahead. I was going to give him some good news. If he will bear with me, I will come to all those points.
 The amendment provides that allocation schemes must be framed so that an applicant will have the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of his case, which is likely to be, or has already been, taken into account in considering whether to allocate housing accommodation. Those are all the facts of the case whether they are relevant to matters covered by the legislation, the code of guidance, or the regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State. 
 I hope that I have answered the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions. No doubt he will seek to take some credit for the amendment. My team can work very fast, but not that fast. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the amendments were tabled only a few hours after our debates on Tuesday afternoon. The proposed change was already in the pipeline, and work in progress was well advanced. However, I will give the hon. Gentleman credit for persuading me to reconsider whether decisions on eligibility should be included in the right of review. The right of review provided by the amendment will extend to such a decision, which will have to be the first decision that an authority makes in the process of deciding whether to allocate accommodation to an individual applicant. I hope that the amendment gives the hon. Member for Bath what he wants, and justifies the e-mail that he intends sending. It also helps to ensure that allocation schemes must be as clear and transparent as possible and therefore help to deliver the Government's policy aims. 
 Amendment No. 108 changes an aspect of the Bill that currently does not achieve the intended policy. As currently drafted, subsection (4) requires that when a housing authority notifies a homeless applicant of the results of its inquiries into his application under part VI of the 1996 Act, the notice must be accompanied by a copy of the statement of the allocation scheme about the policy for offering choice to people allocated housing accommodation under part VI. The provision ensures that homeless applicants who are accepted as being owed a main duty—and who, consequently, must be secured temporary accommodation by the authority until a settled housing solution can be found—are clear about what they can expect in the way of choice. 
 Clause 24 as currently drafted does not completely achieve that policy aim. It requires authorities to provide such a statement to accompany the statutory notice that it must give to all homeless applicants about the outcome of their application. That includes not only those who will be secured temporary accommodation pending something more settled, but applicants who are found to be not homeless, and those who, although homeless, are owed only a duty to provide advice and assistance. Such a wide obligation is unnecessary, and would be unduly burdensome on authorities and confusing to applicants. 
 To put matters right, amendment No. 109 will insert provisions in schedule 2 that will place a more limited requirement on authorities to provide a statement about their policy on choice in respect only of applicants who are owed the main rehousing duty under sections 193 and 195 of the 1996 Act. We are not dealing with amendment No. 109 now, as it also covers another issue and has been placed in a subsequent group of amendments, but I thought it was right to explain the effect of amendment No. 108. 
 The framework set out in the clause is robust and fair. It provides a transparent and systematic set of arrangements for assessing need, preference categories and priorities. The Government amendments will bolster and strengthen that framework. On that basis, I ask Opposition Members to withdraw amendments Nos. 77, 91, 83, 92 and 96, and I commend amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108 to the Committee.

Andrew Love: I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, although I cannot say I followed it all. I noted the reassurance he gave that decisions of local authorities have to be reasonable. The concern behind amendment No. 83 is about the formulation of the clause, particularly new subsection (2A)(b), which relates to
any behaviour of a person . . . which affects his suitability to be a tenant. 
That gives a very wide scope for authorities to reduce the priority given to people, possibly unfairly, for a wide variety of reasons. The hon. Member for Bath referred to people who have rent arrears. 
 I seek further reassurance from the Minster that applications will be given less priority only when it reasonable to do so, taking into account housing need. 
 That is the important part. Will authorities have to take housing need into account before they take that decision?

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I can give him exactly the assurance that he seeks. It will be inherent in the system that authorities must take account of all relevant factors, including housing need. The specific provision of amendment No. 106 relates to people who have been evicted for antisocial behaviour. We had to ensure that the provision under which authorities will take into account housing need does not override very sound reasons for denying access to accommodation to people who have behaved in a completely unacceptable way and would be likely to make their neighbours' lives a misery if re-housed. That is the very specific and exceptional circumstance provided for under amendment No. 106. It is necessary because, as part of the general provisions, housing need is one of the factors that must be taken into account.

Andrew Love: I had finished, but I thank the Minister for that reassurance.

Tim Loughton: The Minister has gone some way to addressing some of the concerns that we raised, especially about the review process, which we should also take some of the credit for, however much he may like to keep it all for himself. We certainly flagged up this problem some time ago.
 As regards the Minister's account of dealing with unsociable behaviour, this matter has only just come up in his amendment, so we need to look into it more closely. I hope that we shall have the opportunity on Report to debate this matter in rather more detail than we were able to do today, although given the time constraints I fear that may be unlikely. We still contend that our own amendment, which gives rather more leeway for local authorities to decide what is unsuitable behaviour, is a better way to proceed, but given the detail in which the Minister has addressed that problem, we will not press our amendment. 
 The Minister gave only cursory attention to our other two amendments regarding out-of-district allocation, although I note his support in principle for the amendment that seeks to foster closer relationships between authorities who have a larger supply of housing and those on whom there are the pressures that we all know about. I am not convinced that our proposal should not appear in the Bill, and the case he made was slightly flimsy on those grounds, but again he has acknowledged the principle, and I hope that he will push for such a measure behind the scenes and include it in the guidance that he will issue to local authorities. 
 As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, the point about bad neighbours is that we should face up to the fact that local authorities should have the right to disqualify people from tenancies if they have an appalling record as tenants. Where I take issue with the Minister is on the framing of the Bill. Our amendment No. 92 says 
``any record of behaviour of a person'' 
whereas the Bill only refers to 
``any behaviour''. 
That may be a person's current behaviour affecting his suitability to be a tenant, so the Bill does not empower local authorities to take account of a person's previous behaviour as a tenant, and he may temporarily appear to be all sweetness and light.

Nick Raynsford: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that, under our amendment, local authorities are able to take previous factors into account, but they must make their decision on the basis of the applicant's current position. They cannot use the fact that he was evicted several years before for antisocial behaviour to debar him from consideration if there is clear evidence that he has improved his behaviour in the meantime. I gave an example in Committee on Tuesday of circumstances in which it would be quite reasonable for someone who had been evicted for antisocial behaviour to be given another chance because of a change of heart and a change in behaviour, and that is what is provided for in this measure.

Tim Loughton: I take the Minister's point. In terms of the wording of the Bill, however, I cannot see how the record will count pari passu with the rehabilitative process that has led to a former neighbour from hell becoming a model neighbour. In view of the detail the Minister has given, we shall not press the amendment to a vote, but we will want to revisit the issue in more detail when we have had more time to consider Government amendments, on Report and thereafter.

Don Foster: We have had a fascinating debate, which began with the drab Christmas tree of amendment No. 77, on to which a large number of bright lights were subsequently hung by both sides of the Committee. It has shown the valuable work of the Committee in its best light.
 As a result of a probing amendment, the Minister has been willing to listen to contributions from Government Back Benchers and from Opposition Members. That has resulted in significant changes to earlier Government proposals. The Minister also referred to a later concession that the Government will make in relation to advice. Again, that was a result of concerted efforts by both sides of the Committee. I shall welcome that change of heart at the appropriate time. 
 The Minister said that I may be able to take some credit from that. It is important to place on record that every Committee member should be grateful for the way in which each of us have been supported by a range of organisations outside this House. I draw special attention to Shelter—which has been referred to on a number of occasions—for providing all Committee members with extremely good briefing material, which, I would argue, was responsible for the amendments tabled by the Minister today. I am not claiming credit for myself; I was merely able to be the mouthpiece for that organisation in the work that it has done, as were other Committee members. 
 I am absolutely delighted by Government amendment No. 107. I am especially delighted by the Minister's interpretation of the amendment, as it showed that it will cover the issue of eligibility in relation to clause 25. 
 The Minister also acknowledged the merits of the amendments tabled by Conservative Members, such as that on relationships to other authorities. Although he was not prepared to accept the amendment, he placed firmly on the record his view that such an inter-authority relationship is valuable and can provide enormous assistance to homeless households. 
 The main issue raised by the clause relates to the various categories that local authorities can use to reduce the priority of applicants. I acknowledge that Government amendment No. 106, as presented by the Minister, is not a replacement for, but an expanded definition of proposed new subsection (2A)(b). Progress has been made, and I welcome the expansion of the definition and the further interpretation of the definition provided by his remarks, but I continue to have concerns about what he said. 
 I am mindful of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who summed up the debate very eloquently when he talked about the need for balance. We should balance our concern about the situation of the homeless with the needs of members of particular communities who may be affected by inappropriate behaviour of people allocated housing in their community. Both sides of the Committee have struggled to find a way of achieving that balance, and I am still not convinced that the Government's amendment No. 106 does so, because there are some quite serious technical difficulties with it. 
Mr. Raynsford indicated dissent.

Don Foster: The Minister shakes his head, which is not surprising. He obviously believes that everything that he has proposed is correct. That is not the case, as he himself has admitted. He said that he had been convinced that the Bill did not achieve the Government's policy intentions. I suggest to him that amendment No. 106 is in the same category, because it will not achieve his policy intentions. The Minister admitted only a few minutes ago that this is work in progress. I remind him that that was the very phrase that he used during our debate on Second Reading. Amendment No. 106, welcome though it is as an improvement to the Bill, is nevertheless still work in progress.
 I shall give just one example to illustrate why I believe that further work is necessary. Amendment No. 106 says in proposed new subsection (2AC): 
 ``For this purpose `unacceptable behaviour` means behaviour which, if the person concerned were a secure tenant of the authority, would entitle the authority to a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 on any ground mentioned in Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act (other than Ground 8).'' 
The critical word is ``entitle'': it would ``entitle'' the authority to a possession order. I asked the Minister how anybody would know whether the behaviour would entitle the authority to a possession order without the court having considered the matter. The Minister acknowledged that in 1999 there were 130,000 requests by local authorities for possession orders, and only 23,000 were granted. Surely the test of whether the authority is entitled to the order can be determined only when the court has studied the case.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there was an enormous difference between the number of possession orders sought and the number granted. The use of the word ``entitled'' is to make it quite clear to a local authority when operating these provisions that it cannot merely rest on the fact that it has sought or may seek a possession order in a particular case. To satisfy this test, it must show that it should be entitled to secure an order, which means that it must show that it has sufficient grounds to be confident that it will obtain an order. That is part of the process. We are trying to create a clear, precise definition that will avoid the problems that would otherwise arise if authorities were able to interpret this provision widely and indiscriminately. Without this amendment, someone evicted for atrocious antisocial behaviour could be put straight back into council housing. We do not want that practice to continue. I hope the hon. Member will accept that that is a necessary policy objective, and that we are pursuing the correct approach to achieve that balance.

Don Foster: I accept entirely that the policy objective is correct, but the debate about whether the amendment truly achieves it. There are two problems with what the Minister has just said. First, both of us acknowledge that local authorities did not expect to be granted all the 130,000 requests for possession orders, but they thought that they would try. However, surely the Minister does not believe that they did not expect to win the vast majority of them. In the vast majority of cases, the authority expected to win, but could not convince the court of its case. In cases in which authorities thought that they had sufficient evidence but did not secure the possession order, they could not demonstrate that they had a sufficient case. The Minister said that they would have to show that they had sufficient evidence for the entitlement. To whom would they have to show that?

Nick Raynsford: I made the point previously and am reluctant to extend the debate too far, as we have many matters to cover this afternoon. I stressed that any local authority that took a decision would be open first to a review and secondly to a challenge in the courts. Therefore, any authority that applies will have to satisfy what is of necessity quite a rigorous test.
 The hon. Gentleman deals with many such cases and will know that the seeking of a possession order is often a management tool used by local authorities to secure payment. It is used as a means to get people to pay their rent. If they pay their rent, there is no question of the authority being entitled to a possession order, so that could not conceivably apply.

Don Foster: The Minister makes the point that other legislation needs to be changed, so that we do not have to waste the courts' time as a cumbersome means of addressing the issue—but that is a separate point.
 I am conscious of the time, so I want to make a rather unusual suggestion to the Minister, which may never have been made by an Opposition Member to the Government. The Minister has tabled amendment No. 106 with very little notice. There will be an opportunity to reconsider the issue in a few days' time on Report. Given that I will certainly withdraw amendment No. 77, I ask the Minister to consider whether to give more time for consideration of the issue. He might also be willing to withdraw amendment No. 106, albeit briefly, to give more time for deliberation. Whatever the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendments made: No. 106, in page 17, line 43, at end insert— 
 `(2AA) Nothing in subsection (2) requires the scheme to provide for any preference to be given to people to whom subsection (2AB) applies. 
 (2AB) This subsection applies to a person if the authority are satisfied (in the light of the circumstances at the time his case is considered) that he is unsuitable to be a tenant owing to unacceptable behaviour on his part or that of a member of his household. 
 (2AC) For this purpose ``unacceptable behaviour'' means behaviour which, if the person concerned were a secure tenant of the authority, would entitle the authority to a possession order under section 84 of the Housing Act 1985 on any ground mentioned in Part I of Schedule 2 to that Act (other than Ground 8).'.
 No. 107, in page 17, line 34, at end insert— 
 `(2AD) The scheme shall be framed so as to secure that a person who has applied to the authority for an allocation of housing accommodation has the right to request a review of any decision about the facts of his case (including a decision as to his suitability as a tenant) which is likely to be, or has been, taken into account in considering whether to allocate housing accommodation to him.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

George Stevenson: I call amendment No. 108. No, I am getting ahead of myself. I call Mr. Waterson to move amendment No. 97.

Nigel Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 17, line 40, at end insert—
 `(2C) The authority shall be able to suspend subsections (2) to (2B) where it can reasonably show that to operate its terms would have a detrimental effect on the provision of local housing needs.'.
 My whole life flashed before me for a moment, Mr. Stevenson. It would be a major hole in my life if I were unable to move this amendment, which I now do with inordinate pleasure and suitable humility. 
 The amendment represents another attempt to make the Bill recognise local variations in demand and supply, particularly in the supply of housing stock. The Local Government Association report to which I have referred says: 
 ``A shortage of the supply of suitable accommodation, notably in London and the South East, means that the extension of the right to housing for all non-priority homeless people would present real difficulties within the level of available resources. 
 In other parts of the country, however, non-priority homeless people can be allocated quickly to accommodation although this accommodation may not be highly desirable and they may not view it, or treat it, as a permanent home.'' 
We all recognise that as a cogent description of the regional variations that exist in the real world of housing allocation. 
 It may assist you, Mr. Stevenson, if I say that I do not intend to speak for long on this amendment, but I may roam slightly generally, which will obviate the need for a stand part debate. It would wrong not to have a canter through the Delft system before we conclude our deliberations. 
The LGA concludes that
 ``Authorities should also be given greater flexibility to develop locally sensitive allocations policies within the broad framework set by the housing register and allocations scheme'' 
and that 
 ``There may be a case for an approach here of considering different approaches at regional or individual local authority level depending on the availability of accommodation in those areas.'' 
We can probably all agree with that. I repeat the example of my own borough council in Eastbourne where the average wait for a home allocation is currently three to four years. The council will shortly change the rules to allow children to be placed in flats, and it is hoped that that will reduce the wait to two to three years; we shall have to see. 
 Having spoken to Councillor Mrs. Ann Murray, the lead cabinet member for housing in Eastbourne, I know that the council is also keen on the choice-based system. I do not know how far that has got formally, but it is lining up for one of the Government's pilot schemes. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his reply rather than in the stand part debate. I cannot help feeling that it is difficult to see how such a choice-based system, which is often referred to in shorthand as the Delft system, will deliver with any confidence in an area such as mine where there is such an enormous imbalance between demand and supply of housing stock. In a nutshell, the Delft system involves the advertising of housing vacancies almost as if they were private houses for rent in the private sector. It is a system that works well not only in Delft but no doubt in other local authorities in Holland—which are doubtless cheesed off that it is has been called after Delft rather than anywhere else.

Nick Raynsford: Edam.

Nigel Waterson: Edam is of course known for its cheese. Delft has to be known for something; I seem to recall that it is for some sort of chinaware.

David Curry: Yes—it is blue.

Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to hear that, as well as the ducks, there is Delft pottery on the walls of my right hon. Friend's constituency home.
 Closer to home, there is a section in the Government document about piloting choice-based systems. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's detailed thoughts on that. A form of pilot scheme is taking place in Harborough, supported by the centre for comparative housing research at De Montfort university—which obviously intends to persist in its name despite the bad press that Simon de Montfort has recently received because of his views on minorities. That scheme is based on the principles of the Delft model of social housing allocation. The emphasis of the Harborough scheme, which has been given the brand name of Harborough home search, is on providing customers with greater choice by advertising. It is hoped to develop the scheme by advertising vacancies on a website—which leads on to the enormously important but not particularly relevant issue of internet access. Customers return coupons for individual properties, and what are called simple and straightforward criteria are used in determining allocations. 
 One of the scheme's selling points is said to be a high level of transparency—a theme that has washed through many of the debates on other amendments. In its summary of the scheme, the LGA report states: 
 ``Particular attention has been given to ensuring that vulnerable households are given additional preference'' 
and are given a priority registration card and so on. It concludes: 
 ``Vulnerable and homeless households are thus given a much greater degree of choice than under traditional systems.'' 
The Government have said that they intend to establish a small fund to support a number of pilot schemes. 
 To summarise my arguments, I wish to press the Minister on how far the schemes have gone and raise the conceptual problem of how the Delft system will operate in Eastbourne and other places where demand for housing is high and supply is low.

Bob Ainsworth: We believe that the amendment is unnecessary and potentially open to abuse. It would allow an authority to suspend the framework for allocating preference and priority to needy groups and to individuals within those groups. In areas of low demand, for example, authorities might find it unnecessary to operate a rigorous and testing prioritising process, but in those circumstances they would be able to offer a home to any eligible applicant whose behaviour or circumstances did not preclude allocation. There is no need to suspend the framework, as it does not affect the allocation process.
 Our proposals already allow for the operation of local lettings schemes. Under section 167(2B)(b) of the 1996 Act, authorities are able to allocate particular housing accommodation to persons of a particular description in accordance with schemes known as ``local lettings schemes'', which could include key worker schemes where it might help attract modestly paid but essential staff to high-cost areas. Such a scheme might be used to lower the child:adult ratio on an estate with a high child density. The scheme might also be operated to provide housing for those who do not usually receive high priority on an authority's register—young single people, for example. 
 It is important to keep such schemes under review and to monitor their impact on those who are not part of the local lettings schemes. Local lettings schemes should not override the reasonable preference categories across an authority's stock when taken as a whole. I cannot envisage what circumstances could justify or require the amendment. 
 The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked about choice-based pilot schemes and his own authority in Eastbourne. Local authorities were invited to bid for funding under an £11 million challenge fund over three years from April 2001. More than 90 bids have been received: about 25 per cent. of all housing authorities have led bids and many more are involved as partners. Bids have come from areas of high and low demand. Almost half of all London authorities have led bids; as have 70 per cent. of metropolitan authorities, 50 per cent. of unitary authorities and 12 per cent. of district authorities. Bids have been received from areas in which full transfer has taken place and from those where the authority is still the main provider of social housing. The value of all the bids currently received is about £33 million and by the end of March we expect to be able to announce which bids have been successful. 
 Eastbourne has applied—

Nigel Waterson: And has no chance.

Bob Ainsworth: It will be assessed along with the other bids, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to hear the Minister's confirmation that Eastbourne is on the list and I hope that it will not immediately be discarded on account of my probing amendment. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter and I hope that the Minister is grateful for the opportunity to deal with it. On the basis of my rudimentary arithmetic, the scheme is three times oversubscribed, so about 60 local authorities will be disappointed. I sincerely hope that Eastbourne will not be one of them. As a quid pro quo as I know that the Government like a deal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 108, in page 17, line 41, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr.Raynsford.] 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos.68 and 89, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 28 and 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Minor and consequential amendments

Nick Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 109, in page 24, line 19, at end insert—
 `. In section 190(2)(b) and (3) (provision of advice and assistance), for ``advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances'' there is substituted ``(or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.
 In section 192(2) (provision of advice and assistance), for the words from ``advice'' to ``circumstances'' there is substituted ``(or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.
 In section 193 (duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally), after subsection (3) (as substituted by section 21 above) there is inserted—
``(3A) The authority shall, on becoming subject to the duty under this section, give the applicant a copy of the statement included in their allocation scheme by virtue of section 167(1A) (policy on offering choice to people allocated housing accommodation under Part VI).'''.
 In section 195 (duties in case of threatened homelessness)—
(a) after subsection (3) there is inserted—
``(3A) The authority shall, on becoming subject to the duty under this section, give the applicant a copy of the statement included in their allocation scheme by virtue of section 167(1A) (policy on offering choice to people allocated housing accommodation under Part VI)'''; and
(b) in subsection (5), for the words from ``furnish'' to ``circumstances'' there is substituted ``provide him with (or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''.'.
 We had a very useful debate on Tuesday about the provisions relating to advice and assistance. I agreed that there was merit in strengthening the current duty to move away from the overly subjective requirement for the authority to provide such advice and assistance as the authority considers appropriate in the circumstances and towards a more objective test. To that end I undertook to table an amendment to schedule 2 for consideration today and this is that amendment. 
 I made the point that the wording 
``such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances'' 
appears in other provisions in the 1996 Act and that it is desirable to have consistency in the wording throughout the legislation. The amendment offers a useful strengthening of the existing duty. In each of the cases where the current duty is to provide 
``advice and such assistance as they consider appropriate in the circumstances'' 
there is substituted 
``(or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance''. 
That means that local authorities will no longer be able to turn applicants away without providing any advice or assistance on the grounds that none 
``was considered appropriate in the circumstances''. 
The amendment will address some of the problems identified in Shelter's study ``Singles Barred'' that we discussed at some length on Tuesday. 
 I know there are still concerns that authorities may be turning people away without assessing their needs. Where this is the case, then authorities are not carrying out their current statutory duties. Under section 184 of the 1996 Act, where an authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, it must make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy itself as to whether the applicant is eligible for assistance and, if so, whether any duty is owed. We will, in the code of guidance, give further advice about how authorities can best respond to that clear existing duty. 
 We have also taken the opportunity of the amendment to make it clear that local authorities may provide advice and assistance through third parties such as advice centres. That will enable applicants to access best possible specialist advice. I have in mind help with rent deposit schemes, or landlord referral services and possibly referral to social services. It provides a real opportunity for authorities to develop effective, preventive multi-agency working. I know my that hon. Friends and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), were concerned that applicants should be given 
``advice and assistance as is reasonable . . ''— 
that was the wording of her amendment—and that this should be supported by a power for the Secretary of State to specify what constituted ``reasonable advice and assistance''. 
 I made it clear on Tuesday that I was not attracted to the order-making provision, but I did explore the value of adopting the drafting of 
``advice and assistance as is reasonable . . ''. 
However, the legal advice that I have received is quite clear that the courts would be likely to take such 
``advice and assistance as is reasonable . . '' 
to be reasonable in the eyes of the local authority. The conclusion was that the proposed drafting would add little, if anything, to the current wording. The formulation that we are offering in amendment No.109 is stronger. It places a clear duty on local authorities to provide or secure advice and assistance to applicants. It is a substantial step forward, and I hope that the change will be welcomed. 
 I have covered the changes to sections 190(2)(b), 190(3), 192(2) and 195(5). New subsections 193(3A) and 195(3A) deal with another issue. 
 Amendment No. 108, which has already been agreed to, removes clause 27(4), which required a housing authority to provide all homeless applicants with a statement of its policy on offering choice. As I have already explained, that was inappropriate because it went wider than our policy intention, which is simply to ensure that those who are entitled to a rehousing obligation receive such information. Inserting new subsections 193(3A) and 195(3A) into the 1996 Act secures the original policy objective. 
 I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Karen Buck: I am grateful to the Minister. I welcome the amendment as a strengthening of the current duty that potentially removes the degree of subjectivity that I was concerned about when I tabled the original amendment.
 In trying to push the Minister to go a little further, I do not expect to be supported by Opposition Members, despite the game-playing that took place on Tuesday in respect of amendment No. 80. We heard the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) make a coruscating attack on centralised prescription and the pressure that it will put on local authorities when we discussed the amendment that dealt with the priority for ex-offenders. 
 Will the Minister reassure me about the duty that the amendment will place on local authorities to ensure that no one is turned away without an interview to establish vulnerability? That is the most important element of amendments Nos. 80 and 109. 
 Given the woeful performance of some local authorities in fulfilling their duties on assistance, will the Minister assure me that the amendment will ensure that nobody is turned away from an advice and assessment centre with no more than a list of alternative accommodation? I am a little concerned that the amendment may allow that still to happen.

Nigel Waterson: I compliment the hon. Lady on an elegant attempt at a tactical withdrawal. The fact is that the original amendment originated from our friends at Shelter, who say:
``we do not believe this amendment''— 
that is, the Government amendment— 
``goes far enough to address our concern that authorities should be required to deliver a basic minimum level of service.'' 
Perhaps this should be a lesson to lobby and pressure groups such as Shelter that the average Government Back Bencher is prepared to go only so far in rebelling on issues like this, and are likely to raise the white flag at the first whiff of grapeshot. The hon. Lady remains a little concerned. Let us hope that her little concerns can be allayed by the Minister. I have a sneaking suspicion that they can. 
 During a previous debate, I quoted at length from the imaginatively titled Shelter report, ``Singles Barred'', which gave examples of people who had received dismal treatment from local authorities.

Karen Buck: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his position with that taken by his colleagues on earlier amendments, when they launched attacks on central Government for centralising the placing of duties on local authorities? When he thinks that he can make a little personal point, he is prepared to ally himself with the forces of centralised prescription.

Nigel Waterson: I assure the hon. Lady that it is not a personal point, but a political point.

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right. If any hon. Member were making an unparliamentary personal attack on another hon. Member, I can assure members of the Committee that I would step in to stop that.

Nigel Waterson: Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.

Karen Buck: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I fully accept your ruling, but I was referring to the fact that the hon. Gentleman mentioned me by name when he was discussing my position on the earlier amendment.

Nigel Waterson: Indeed, it was a parliamentary attack on the hon. Lady and I make no apology for that. Like every other member of the Committee, she will have to face her own electorate in a few weeks' time.
 The report from Shelter is pretty convincing. The original amendment, argued for by the hon. Lady and others, was based on what it considered to be appropriate. Shelter is clearly disappointed by the Minister's solution, but it appears that any majority on the Committee for pursuing the issue further has melted away. Therefore, I cannot take the matter any further.

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington North asked for clarification of obligations on local authorities not to turn homeless applicants away without an interview. As I explained earlier, that provision is already contained in existing legislation. It was originally established in the 1977 legislation and carried forward into the 1996 Act. Section 184 makes the position clear. It says:
 ``If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves— 
 (a) whether he is eligible for assistance, and 
 (b) if so, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him under the following provisions''. 
That is the existing law. I accept that the evidence that has been adduced shows that it is not effective in every area, and it is essential that it should be effective. In the code of guidance that will accompany the new legislation and amplify the existing code of guidance we shall emphasise the importance of local authorities accepting their responsibility to all homeless applicants, but we cannot add a further statutory obligation, because one already exists. The important point is to make sure that it works. 
 On that basis, I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that the amendment is sensible. As I said, we believe, on the basis of considerable legal advice, that it is a much stronger and more effective formulation than the one proposed in her amendment. I hope that those who were engaged in promoting it—particularly Shelter—will recognise that. It is our policy objective that all local authorities should ensure that all homeless applicants are properly assessed and receive appropriate support or assistance. 
 All that I can say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne is that I will never be surprised at the Opposition's ability to move from one position to another, turning the most extraordinary somersaults without showing any shame at the inconsistency of their position. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 86, in page 24, line 29, leave out ```the' and insert `the ``authority's'. 
 No. 87, in page 24, line 29, leave out `homelessness' and insert `housing'.—[Mr. Raynsford.] 
 Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. 
 Schedule 3 agreed to. 
 Clauses 30 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

George Stevenson: I call new clause 7.

Don Foster: Not moved.

Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. As you know, we are under the cudgels of a programme resolution and Opposition Ms have tried to curtail our remarks to ensure that all right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to have their day in court. It is amazing that at this late stage Liberal Members should choose not to move the new clauses, when we could have used the time to discuss more important things.

Don Foster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne that during the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee I joined him in seeking to persuade it to extend our deliberations until midnight on our last sitting. We were unsuccessful. Therefore, I hope that he will not continue to accuse me of trying to curtail the debate. May I also point out that there are some important issues still to be debated? I understand that, in particular, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon is anxious to have a reasonable debate on his new clause. One reason for my generosity in not moving new clauses 7 and 8 was as a courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, who has not had the opportunity to make a major contribution to the debate. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eastbourne is so curmudgeonly about my generosity.

George Stevenson: Neither of those was a point of order. If the hon. Member for Bath wishes to withdraw the new clauses, that is entirely a matter for him. We now move on to new clause 14. New Clause 14 Whether it is reasonable to continueto occupy accommodation

New Clause 14 - Whether it is reasonable to continueto occupy accommodation

To move the following Clause:— 
 `.—( ) In section 177 of the 1996 Act (whether it is reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
``( ) It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to racial harassment against him, or against—
(a) a person who normally resides within him as a member of his family, or
(b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.
For this purpose, ``racial harassment'', in relation to a person, means harassment from another person by reason of a person's race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.'.
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Oona King: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to discuss New Clause 15. New Clause 15 Referral of applicant to another authority

New Clause 15 - Referral of applicant to another authority

To move the following Clause:— 
 `( ).—(1) Section 198 of the 1996 Act (referral to another local housing authority) is amended as follows.
 (2) in subsection (2) at the end there is inserted—
``( ) neither the applicant nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him will run the risk of racial harassment in that district.''
 (3) after subsection (3) at the end there is inserted—
``( ) For this purpose `racial harassment') in relation to a person, means harassment from another person by reason of a person's race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.''.'.

Oona King: I am pleased to speak to new clauses 14 and 15 as they seek to help victims of racial abuse. Anyone who doubts that tighter legislation in this area is required, need only speak to my constituents, both black and white, who have suffered racially motivated harassment and violence—families whose young children have suffered the most gratuitous and foulest language imaginable. They have had missiles thrown at them, excrement, burning rubbish and petrol bombs pushed through their letterboxes and suffered violent physical attacks. Such abuse takes place daily up and down the country. I sincerely hope that the Committee will take action to offer victims greater protection.
 I know of a family with two teenage children living in owner-occupied accommodation who have experienced two years of racial harassment. This culminated in an attack on their home in December. On the night of the attack, their front door bell was rung constantly. When the father opened the door, a group of masked men rushed in, viciously assaulted him, breaking his jaw and his shoulder. When his wife tried to intervene, she was punched in the face. The daughter rushed upstairs to phone the police. The men entered the son's bedroom and assaulted him. They broke his nose, slashed his face and stabbed him twice in the thigh. Throughout the assault, the attackers continued to use racist insults. As a result of the attack, the father and son both needed extensive hospital treatment. The family were severely traumatised and, quite naturally, no longer felt safe in their home. 
 Six months previously, the local authority was informed by a monitoring group that the family were suffering racial harassment and were at risk of racist violence following an 18-month hate campaign. The local authority took no immediate action, but suggested instead that they maintain a diary. That suggestion has been made to many of my constituents; indeed, I have had to make it myself. The family duly kept a diary, and in the six months leading up to the attack they noted and reported 18 separate incidents of racial harassment. The local authority prepared a case to seek possession of the perpetrator's home, but the action was not followed through. The local authority did not offer to re-house the family, as they were owner-occupiers. After the attack the family were offered emergency temporary accommodation, but they had to turn it down because they were unable to pay the rent for that accommodation and the mortgage on their home. 
 What would new clause 14 do in such cases? It would amend the Housing Act 1996 so that it would be unreasonable for a person who was experiencing racial harassment to continue to occupy the accommodation in question. In such circumstances, applicants would be regarded as homeless and would be entitled to an assessment to determine whether they were in priority need as defined in the forthcoming regulations. 
 Fewer than half all local authorities have policies in place to address racial harassment. As many of my colleagues are aware, the authorities that have such policies are limited to initiating protracted eviction proceedings against the perpetrators, or to re-housing existing tenants. That leaves people in the private sector virtually unprotected. New clause 14 would substantially improve their ability to access the homelessness safety net. 
 It is clear that the existing legislation, which amounts to weakly drafted guidance, does not go far enough to protect those suffering racial violence, let alone those who suffer racial harassment or the threat of racial violence. A household may apply under section 175(3) of the 1996 Act on the ground that it is not reasonable for them to continue to occupy their accommodation. However, in practice many of those who flee racial violence are unable to use that route to establish that they are homeless. Their future depends on whether their local authority is prepared to exercise its discretion. 
 I am pleased to say that my own local authority has an excellent track record in that regard. In the past four years, I have come across only two cases in which the authority refused to accept a duty of care. In both cases, the homeless persons unit quickly changed the decision once more substantive evidence of harassment and the threat of violence was produced. 
 However, it is clear that the example of best practice offered by Tower Hamlets and a small number of other metropolitan authorities is not matched elsewhere. Ministers may well conclude that the way to iron out such anomalies is through clearer secondary regulation or more strongly worded guidance. If an authority cannot take its responsibilities seriously, it needs a little more encouragement. 
 This issue is too serious to leave to chance. I would argue that a clear parallel can be drawn between the experience of those suffering racial violence and those fleeing domestic violence. Section 177 of the 1996 Act states that it is not reasonable for those who experience domestic violence or the threat of domestic violence to continue to occupy accommodation. Sadly, Shelter's research indicates that authorities are much more likely to help people at risk of domestic violence than those at risk of racial violence. The current guidance merely offers a suggestion that authorities can take or leave. That is why I want new clause 14 or something similar in the Bill. 
 I recognise that there are problems. Local authorities will have concerns about the potential for applicants to approach homeless services with unfounded allegations of racial harassment. I also recognise that not all or even most antisocial behaviour directed at ethnic minority families amounts to racial harassment. However, in the many clear cases in which families are subject to race-hate campaigns, councils must have a duty to act. If Ministers hold a similar view—I am sure that they do—they and their advisers are no doubt more than capable of making the definition of racial harassment less ambiguous. 
 It would be preferable if the family that I talked about at the start of my speech were rehoused after its members were victims of racial harassment, but before they were victims of racial violence. Prevention is obviously better than cure. In the real world of the east end, many of my constituents, black and white, believe that they are victims of racial harassment, but it would be impossible to rehouse each family that claimed racial harassment. I ask the Minister to consider what protection can be given to those who, having suffered racial harassment, are deemed to be at risk of racial violence. 
 New clause 15 will ensure that applicants fleeing racial harassment or violence cannot be referred back to an area where they would be at risk of abuse. It mirrors a provision contained in the 1996 Act on domestic violence. When the Minister responds to both new clauses, I sincerely hope that he will share my and my Labour colleagues' determination that much stronger duties to help those fleeing racial violence should be included in the Bill.

Tim Loughton: We very much support the thrust of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). She knows about the subject only too well from her experience in her constituency. The briefings available lead us to be worried about the scale of the problem, which is especially bad in the east end, although places such as Bradford and other metropolitan boroughs are also affected. There have been cases of racial abuse in my constituency, so it is not necessarily a problem exclusively of inner cities and other urban areas.
 There are various problems. We must see cases against the perpetrators through to court, as they often do not make it that far because those acting as witnesses fear severe reprisals. The 1996 Act provided some help, as it allowed managers from registered social landlords to appear in court as expert witnesses on behalf of tenants. That does not apply solely to racial cases, but generally to those of violence and antisocial behaviour. I have had experience of bringing the manager of a registered social landlord and tenants who were being terrorised together with the police, and we made successful progress in that way. 
 As the hon. Lady said, various ameliorative measures were added to the 1996 Act under section 177, but people can be homeless within their own homes because they are terrified of living there. I know of families who have split up because they are so scared that they have to sleep with other relatives. Mothers, fathers and children are split up because of the pressures. I know of people—the hon. Lady mentioned them, as did Shelter in its briefing notes—who have to sleep downstairs because of the fear that people might break in or set fire to the house in the middle of the night. The problem is, as the hon. Lady said, that people use those measures in a vexatious way. 
 I do not know whether the new clause is practical, although I agree with its sentiments. I hope that the Minister will take it on board and fashion something workable, but we must remember that people will use it as an excuse. If people claim that they are suffering undue racial abuse and that it is impossible to continue living in their house, a proper investigation should be undertaken. Genuine cases should have recourse to remedial action. The analogy that the hon. Lady draws with domestic violence, which was dealt with in the 1996 Act, is right. The Bill's provisions should be put on a par with that. 
 The law is flawed. Although we support the thrust of the new clause, we are prepared to take soundings from the Minister on the most practical way of carrying those principles forward.

Bob Ainsworth: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for the graphic way in which she brought the problems that face her constituents and people in other parts of the country to the Committee's attention. I also thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his support of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend.
 I hope that what I have to say will satisfy my hon. Friend and Opposition Members alike. Racial harassment is intolerable in a civilised society. Like my hon. Friends, I condemn it outright. No one of any colour, race, creed or nationality should be put in fear at home, at work or in public places. We all know that racial discrimination is widespread and, more seriously, that racial harassment is a fact of life for far too many people. It is clearly not right that people should be driven out of their homes by such behaviour. Tenants should be able to expect their landlords—especially social landlords—to deal quickly and firmly with the perpetrators. 
 Ultimately, we are dealing with any sort of violence or threatened violence. The Government take it seriously and are promoting the use of specific ``non-harassment'' clauses in tenancy agreements in the social housing sector. Any breach of a tenancy agreement will render a tenant liable to eviction. That builds on measures already in place to enable landlords to deal with racial harassment on their estates. The Government want those powers to be used more widely. For example, the 1996 Act allows local authorities and other landlords to ask the courts to attach a power of arrest to injunctions taken out to prevent breaches of a tenancy agreement, when violence has occurred or has been threatened. The Act also makes it possible for landlords to evict if a tenant, a lodger or a visitor to the tenant's property has been convicted of an arrestable offence in the vicinity of the property. 
 In earlier exchanges, I said that we will be extending the priority need categories of homeless people by order under section 189 of the 1996 Act. That will create a new category of applicants who will have priority need if they are vulnerable as a result of having to leave their home, because to remain there would carry a risk of violence towards them or any member of their household. The provision would cover, for example, a risk of domestic violence, or a risk of racially motivated violence. 
 Under the provisions of part VII of the 1996 Act, local authorities must consider whether it would be reasonable for applicants to continue to live in their current accommodation, before deciding whether they are homeless. If it would not be reasonable, and the applicant has nowhere else to live, then he or she is statutorily homeless. When deciding whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to continue to live in his or her present home, authorities should consider if that would give rise to any risk of violence. 
 However, there is a case for reviewing the provisions and making it explicit that violence or acts of violence are grounds on which it would be unreasonable to continue to occupy accommodation. That would include racially motivated violence, and it is our intention to table an amendment to achieve that. Given that undertaking, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw her new clause. I hope that I have satisfied her on the points that she raised.

Oona King: I thank the Minister for the constructive proposals that he has made. I understand that they will give protection to people at risk of violence, including racial violence. Before concluding these brief remarks, I should like to thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his thoughtful contribution on an area that I wish was less subject to party-political point scoring. This is an opportunity for us to send out a clear message that people who are at risk of racially motivated violence will now get the protection that they deserve. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18 - New form of short term tenure for councils (short social tenancy)

`. In Schedule 1 of the Housing Act 1985 (tenancies which are not secure tenancies), after paragraph 4 there is inserted—
``4A. A tenancy is not a secure tenancy provided that—
(i) the local housing authority concerned has notified the tenant that the property is not being allocated as a secure tenancy; and
(ii) the local housing authority concerned has notified the tenant of the reason or reasons why the property is not being allocated as a secure tenancy; and
(iii) the dwelling has either been designated as unsuitable for a secure tenancy in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State or the dwelling has been allocated in accordance with the provisions of a local letting scheme under section 167(2B) of the Housing Act 1996.''.'.—[Mr. Curry.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

David Curry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I was not aware that the new clause had been awaited with such breathless expectancy. I am overwhelmed by the enthusiasm for it. It is an important clause, which builds on an element of the 1996 legislation that I piloted through the House—the assured shorthold tenancy. It also builds on the Government's housing Green Paper and on the social exclusion unit's work on unpopular housing. I hope that we can establish at the beginning that the measure is designed to make use of housing that might otherwise not be used. It is also designed to assist in housing people and to contribute to the maintenance of neighbourhoods that would otherwise become run-down, leading to degeneration. Those are the purposes of the clause, and I emphasise that the housing that would be provided would be available to those who come under the social needs category. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

David Curry: I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Bath back in the Room. because it would have been soul-destroying for him if, after his heroic sacrifice of time, he had not been able to hear what I have to say. Knowing what an ecumenical chap he is, I am sure that he would have found that difficult to bear. I am grateful to him for not moving his new clause, as that enabled us to reach this point.
 The purpose of new clause 18 is simply to create a short-term tenancy to allow property to be used temporarily when it would otherwise remain empty. That is the top and bottom of it. It builds on the Green Paper and on the exclusion unit's concerns about undesirable property. It attempts to find a use for property and in doing so to help to sustain neighbourhoods that might otherwise degenerate as the number of empty properties increases. 
 The housing Green Paper foreshadows the provision. The problem with current legislation is that it makes it difficult for councils to offer short-term and unlicensed property and practically impossible to offer self-contained property—there are limited conditions in the Housing Act 1985—without creating a secure tenancy after 12 months. Once a secure tenancy has been created, various rights are established, including the right to buy, as well as liabilities. Local authorities may find themselves with serviceable stock that they cannot use. I want to provide a way to enable them to use it. 
 There may be large-scale regeneration projects and local authorities throughout the country, especially in some northern cities, are in the process of demolishing surplus stock. The demographic trend of tenants is such that councils find themselves with more empty stock and part of the answer is to demolish it. That applies in Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle and other great metropolitan authorities, but London and some other areas are entirely different. The problem exists across a wide swathe of large metropolitan councils. Many projects take five or 10 years and demolition will gradually reduce the level of stock in the long term. 
 If vacancies arises in those properties because regeneration is planned and people have been decanted, the council cannot afford to let them on secure tenancies because they might incur considerable financial liabilities in doing so—it is barmy to repair property that is due to be knocked down—or be unable to secure the premises when they want to demolish the properties. A short-term tenancy would enable councils to use such property a number of times for long-term temporary accommodation for statutory or non-statutory homeless or potentially homeless households until the property is needed for redevelopment. It would certainly provide better accommodation than bed and breakfast or just dossing down, which is often the alternative. 
 Another potential benefit is the creation of sustainable communities. I do not wish to invoke Lord Rogers too frequently, but current wisdom is for mixed communities and mixed tenures. We know that vital groups of workers find it difficult to find accommodation and the measure might bring the two together. People who do not qualify for support under the homelessness legislation could be given short-term tenancies. They could occupy accommodation and generate an income, which would help the local neighbourhood in terms of a market for services, shops, hairdressing, bus routes, schools and so on, before entering the housing marketplace if that is what they want to do. That would contribute to the sustainability of the community. 
 Finally, the measure would generate income for the local authority, which would have a rent stream rather than a boarded-up, empty property. We all know that an empty property, as with an empty shop in a town centre, is a debilitating feature of the landscape and damages the whole viability of the community, whether a business or social community. The provision would help to deal with that problem. 
 I would expect the short social tenancy to be used in well-defined circumstances. It is not intended as a replacement for normal secure tenancies and it is not the same as a single secure tenancy for social housing, to which the Minister is attached and which was one of the main outcomes of the consultation on the Green Paper. However, it would give councils the equivalent of the assured shorthold tenancy and could be regulated in much the same way. 
 I do not expect the Minister to declare that the new clause is technically perfect in all aspects—he has parliamentary counsel to do the job for him—but I hope that he will agree that the spirit of the amendment is consistent with the Bill and what is, in many respects, a consensual policy on homelessness, inner cities and regeneration. It flows from the 1996 Act for which I was responsible and from actions for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible as Minister for Housing and Planning.

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who was formerly a Housing Minister, has much experience in the matter. His proposal is most interesting, and follows lines that we are considering. It was one of the recommendations of the policy action team investigating the problem of unpopular housing and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it was proposed in the Green Paper on housing, which received a positive response in consultation.
 The provision would, in defined circumstances, enable a local housing authority to make an allocation that is not a secure tenancy. For example, that might be appropriate where house prices were not affordable to modestly paid key workers, who could be offered a short-term tenancy to enable them to save for a deposit or to establish roots in the area prior to buying a house. It would be possible, too, for similar arrangements to be used as a weapon in low-demand areas where there is unpopular housing. An authority might want to offer short-term tenancies in anticipation of the eventual redevelopment of an area, or to attract to a locality people who would not normally live there but who would bring greater economic prosperity. 
 As the right hon. Gentleman correctly anticipated, we are attracted to the principles underlying the proposal but we cannot accept it as it would add to the existing complexity of the tenure structure. We do not want to do that without considering the full panoply of housing legislation that relates to tenancies in the public sector and those that affect registered social and other landlords. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is not enamoured of the word ``holistic'' so I shall say that the issue must be considered in the round. 
 It may be possible to bring together the principal tenancies offered by registered social landlords and local authorities into a single tenure for the social housing sector. It would be sensible to do that as a considered and comprehensive package, rather than by introducing one step now and having to make subsequent alterations and amendments. 
 The proposal is welcome and we support its intention. We will further consider how it can be advanced in the context of other tenures to ensure that the right, long-term mix of tenures is available. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

David Curry: I anticipated the Minister's words but I want to query the need to
``consider the full panoply of housing legislation''. 
That does not sound susceptible to amendment in another place, nor is it susceptible to legislation within an immediate time scale. 
 The Minister referred to what could best be described as the codification of tenancy, which would be a helpful tool for regeneration, and to allowing people to find a first foot on the housing ladder in areas where housing is scarce or to help community building where housing is over-plentiful. It would therefore be a pity to wait for a future Bill, under whichever Government's auspices, which may have no immediate prospect of consideration. 
 I shall withdraw the new clause, because I realise that the geo-political forces are weighed against me. However I hope that the Minister will say when 
``the full panoply of housing legislation'' 
might fall to the attention of whoever has the portfolio. That would provide a little reassurance and the Minister could reflect on returning to the idea later in the Bill. The blurred outline might just take on a few thinly traced shapes for later consideration.

Nick Raynsford: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that
``the full panoply of housing legislation'' 
is uppermost in my mind. As I said, we have to consider all the various strands in the complex pattern rather than legislate immediately. I cannot provide assurance about amendments in another place or later in the passage of the Bill, but the idea is on the agenda for Government action within the reasonably near future.

David Curry: I have two reflections. One is that ``reasonably'' is a wonderfully accommodating word: we cannot define it because it would then lose its wonderfully accommodating nature. Secondly, I recall the Minister wanting to deal urgently with the licensing of houses in multiple occupation and with commonhold five years ago at the time of the 1996 Act, but those elements of the panoply have not been pulled together with the urgency anticipated at the time of the Minister's utterances.
 I shall not press the new clause to the vote. The Minister has said that legislation will occur at some stage if he is still the Minister with responsibility for housing—it is rather like the second coming. We all hope that it will happen in the end and that we shall be on the right side of it when it does. It may fall to others to implement the necessary measures. We have had a useful debate and we have all agreed that it would be a jolly good idea if anyone gets round to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Raynsford: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. We are approaching the end of our proceedings, so I want to make the few remarks that are customary when we are not so pressured to finish at a particular time.
 We have had three extremely useful and productive weeks—mercifully short by comparison with my experience of previous Committees, which went on for months rather than weeks. Our debates have been intensive and productive. We have ranged over several important issues that affect virtually every member of our society—home owners, prospective home owners, people seeking accommodation through a local authority or registered social landlord, people exposed to the miseries of homelessness or racial harassment and so forth. 
 We have ranged wide geographically. We have had a brief excursion in the Yorkshire dales, visiting the cat-loving cottagers who are the neighbours of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. We have discovered that some members of the Committee have extraordinary connections with Bradford, and we eventually reached the faded splendours of the south coast. I also noticed that the right hon. Gentleman used his time productively to make a small paper boat—perhaps to evoke the delights of south-coast resorts such as Eastbourne. 
 We have considered a significant number of amendments with varying impacts and we have incorporated a number of changes into the Bill. That is exactly what a Committee should do—scrutinise a Bill and make it better. A number of those changes have resulted from specific points and concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I am extremely grateful to them for the way in which they have tabled their amendments and contributed constructively to the process of improving the Bill. 
 I am also grateful to the various bodies that advised us and gave us the benefit of their experience on a range of housing issues. I should like to thank all members of the Committee for the constructive and good-humoured tenor of our proceedings. In particular, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who started the Committee as a Whip and now joins me as a Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), his successor as Whip, who has ensured that we completed our proceedings on time; and my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who has to carry out the generally thankless task of a Parliamentary Private Secretary, which he has done with his customary skill and enthusiasm. 
 I should like to extend my thanks to all the officials who have helped enormously with the preparations of briefs and information, to the police who have ensured our security, to the Hansard staff who, as always, have provided an extraordinarily accurate representation of our remarks, including language from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon that I am sure has appeared in Hansard for the first time. I should like to thank the Clerk for advising you, Mr. Stevenson, and Mr. Gale, your co-Chairman, in such a way as to ensure the expeditious handling of our proceedings. Above all, I should like to thank you, and Mr. Gale in his absence, for the way in which you have presided over the Committee. 
 This has been a good-natured Committee. It has dealt with difficult and sometimes controversial issues in a constructive and good-humoured style. That owes an enormous amount to the way in which the Committee has been chaired. You, Mr. Stevenson, and your co-Chairman Mr. Gale, have enlivened us with some humorous insight. You have always made sure that we kept strictly in order. You have not allowed us to stray too far into the unforeseen byways of political controversy and you have kept a good pace that has ensured that we shall complete our proceedings on time. I am grateful to you and I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend's rest after three weeks of arduous activity in this Committee.

Nigel Waterson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I associate myself with almost everything that the Minister has said. I should like to be able to ascribe to you and your co-Chairman the fact that we are finishing at five o'clock today, but it has nothing to do with either of you. It is the programme resolution.
 On the whole, we have had a good-natured Committee, even if we have moved at a brisk pace at bayonet point. I thank you and your co-Chairman for your kind, indulgent and efficient chairing of our proceedings, Mr. Stevenson. I should also like to thank the officials, the staff and all those who make our proceedings run relatively smoothly, the Hansard writers and so on. I should like to thank all the members of the Committee. Just about every member has contributed to the proceedings, some more than others. I should particularly like to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their hard work on the Committee. The Minister referred to the model boat that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made. The Minister should have a care, as that is just the sort of example of the long-term therapy that most Housing Ministers engage in after any time in that thankless office. I also thank those who provided helpful briefings and draft amendments. 
 It has been an exciting Committee at times, despite an unprepossessing start, as it were. We had the alarums and excursions of the new heir to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). We have discovered some interesting facts. For example, as a child, the Minister spent some time living in a caravan in Bradford, but that was under a previous Labour Government, so we should not be surprised. 
 Even in this relatively peaceful and quiet backwater, the ripples of great events have sometimes been felt. In Committee, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East was deservedly promoted from Whip to a ministerial post. The hon. Member for Doncaster, North became the Whip, and we welcome that. All that happened as a result of the understandable wish of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) to leave public office and spend more time with his lawyers. 
 I thank everyone concerned, particularly you, Mr. Stevenson, and your co-Chairman, for a generally harmonious Committee.

Don Foster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I associate myself with the remarks that have been made and the thanks offered to so many people.
 I was interested in the comments by the hon. Member for Eastbourne and the Minister about the boat constructed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. It was suggested that it was a form of therapy. I am in a somewhat privileged position, because I can see the therapy involving paper that is required by Whips. Committee Members might like to have a look later, but I can assure them that the therapy for the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is the Opposition Whip, is to turn himself into a human paper shredder. 
 As right hon. and hon. Members have said, we have had an important three weeks discussing the Bill. Despite the occasional curmudgeonly outburst from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, this has been a Committee of great good humour, which has at the same time addressed serious points. As I said, we have truly demonstrated the value of Committee work and of the high-quality briefings that are provided for us by various organisations. 
 The Government have not sought to railroad every proposition in the Bill. There has been some willingness to listen and to take on board the ideas expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We should be grateful for that and for the evidence that we have given of the benefit of the parliamentary process. Sadly, however, the Government have not accepted as many amendments as we would have liked, so I am particularly looking forward to the next stage of our deliberations, next Wednesday. 
 I thank you, Mr. Stevenson, and your fellow Chairman, Mr. Gale, for the helpful way in which you have chaired the Committee.

George Stevenson: The paper boat constructed by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon speaks volumes for his tenacity. Given that he spent a number of years in the European Parliament, was a member of the previous Government, is a former Housing Minister and is now in opposition, I am surprised that his hands were steady enough to put the boat together.

David Curry: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I am happy to present the boat to you.

George Stevenson: On behalf of my co-Chairman and myself, I thank every member of the Committee, the Clerks, the Hansard writers, the police and the Ushers of the House for their patience and forbearance. I now have the pleasure of announcing that the Committee's business has concluded.
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at two minutes to Five o'clock.